Oregon judge: taking photos up girl's skirt not illegal (what about federal law on CP?)

Lame… Or did the prosecutor mismanaged this case and try the perpetrator under the wrong statue?

The way our legal system works is this: If the prosecutor charged a criminal under criminal statue A and C, but the criminal is guilty of violating criminal statue B and neither A nor B, the jury and the judge must find him not guilty (likely reluctantly). So this is why it’s important for prosecutors to charge people under the correct and accurate statue. This is actually how predatory vigilantes like George Zimmerman got off scot free. And this is why there was a lot of talk about whether Derek Chauvin is tried under the correct statue even though it’s so obvious what he did was a very egregious crime.

This is the reason why I don’t hate on judges or juries, their job is to determine guilt in relation to the very specific charges the prosecutor brings, not as to whether the criminal’s conduct was evil, a predator, or whatever. So the fault does not lie with judge in this case, but with either prosecutor services or the lacking of proper law. (or maybe both prosecutor and improperly written law).

Is there truly no law to prevent this?

The reason why I ask is because it seems possible that this man violated federal child pornography law in terms of lewd and lascivious exhibitions of the pubic region, genitals or anus. Something can be considered a violation of the dost test even if clothed.

Considering this, doesn’t upskirt imagery which involve minors violate child pornography laws even if taken in public? I read the legal code, there is nothing in it that even suggests doing so in public would be a defense. So wouldn’t this criminal be guilty of a child pornography statue?

Washington County Circuit Court Judge Eric Butterfield ruled on Thursday that Patrick Buono did not break the law when he surreptitiously took the pictures of the girl in January 2013, said his defense attorney Mark Lawrence.

The practice of “upskirting” has caused problems for prosecutors in other court cases where there are no laws on the books preventing people from taking unauthorized pictures up the skirts of clothed women in public places.

Maloney said he thinks lawmakers could provide more clarity, “but it was clear what conduct the defendant engaged in.”


Is it possible or even likely this perv violated a child pornography law? Someone said you were a lawyer? On twitter anyways some people were talking about how this organization is pedo sympathizing and were and made occasional comments about you being a lawyer.

Typo on the sentence. what I meant to say was: The way our legal system works is this: If the prosecutor charged a criminal under criminal statue A and C, but the criminal is guilty of violating criminal statue B and neither A nor C,

The people who say that are either bigots who like to use pedophilia as a general slur and don’t like how we talk about it scientifically, or a few well-meaning people who don’t understand the topic and have false conceptions brought about by the stigma around it. Speaking from experience it takes a while to learn that your lifelong assumptions around CSA are wrong. It is annoying to have to deal with people spreading abuse and misinformation, but we expected it when we started. The only thing for us to do with people who won’t listen, as other experts in this field do, is to ignore them. They are rarely interested in learning and if we spent too much time on them, we wouldn’t be able to do our job.

I’m a lawyer yes but I am not going to second guess the judge on this case, he heard the facts and I didn’t. Some countries have specific upskirting laws to deal with this problem. It’s more of a privacy law problem than a CP law problem in some ways, because it shouldn’t matter whether the upskirter actually manages to photograph anything explicit, the attempt is still abusive.

1 Like

Well, if you are going to promote stuff like map support club, yeah people are going to freak out. Maybe some good will come out of it. But it’s entirely unsurprising that they would think prostasia is the reincarnation of an illegal organization like nambla.

The only way to convince them is to get positive results. If there are statistics that show that this reduces recidivism and prevent offending from happening in the first place, people will support it.

Getting a professional evaluation of it done is something we are aiming for, which will take money. It’s hard to evaluate negative outcomes (eg. people who would have harmed someone but didn’t). But there are plenty of studies that say that this sort of approach is the right one.

whether its considered cp or not, should still be illegal. even if we agree this doesnt fall under cp laws, should still be illegal.

Well, if we want expression to be illegal, can we make your words illegal? Yes, let’s do that.

1 Like

also its pretty obvious what he did violates the dost test. only reason why the feds didnt go after him maybe its cause federal laws are more geared towards the worst offenders so they kicked this down to the states to deal with. no clue. but u shouldnt be allowed to fucking sneak shit under peoples dresses to photograph their genitals

Nobody here would disagree with this post.
Anything that involves an actual child victim is implicated in a sexual act is intolerable.

But works of fiction and fantasy do not count and should not count on the simple premise that they are harmless, depict no crime, and create no victim.

This case does not involve fiction it involves a criminal invading the privacy of a 13 year old to get an upskirt shot. whether what image he took was cp or not it should be illegal regardless and it definately fits the cp law under fed statue. law very clear what he did violates federal law.

Why should we legalize fake cp? why do we want this stuff normalized in our culture? keep it banned, just dont enforce it. keep police forces to prioritize the enforcement of laws against real abuse. keeping it banned discourages the production of it even if not enforced.

I know, but I’m talking specifically about fictional works that don’t use real children.

Because there’s no justified reason to.

Nobody does and fake CP will not normalize anything. The “normalization” fallacy is a fake argument premised on unproven, unlikely pessimistic assumptions about culture. Violent, sexist, or racist media has yet to “normalize” those things, yet they still exist and are considered “wrong”. This fallacious paranoia that the difference between right and wrong is and has always been unfounded. It’s time to break the cycle of moral panics.

Yeah man, ban interracial cohabitation and blasphemous literature and hip-hop music, just don’t enforce it. The cultural sentiment we make up in our heads is far more important than the actual reality that the law implies.
This isn’t a valid argument or suggestion. If a law is unjustified, it’s simply unjustified. Your feelings don’t come before the right to free speech.

And that’s precisely what i don’t think you understand. I’m not talking about real CP, I’m talking specifically about fictional material. The idea that speech could be “discouraged” by law completely undermines and almost wholly delegitmizes the free speech principle and the concept of “value”.
If it’s harmless, why bother?

1 Like